Coffee Trade Services, Inc. v. ContiTrade Services Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coffee Trade Services, Inc. v. ContiTrade Services Corp.

193 A.D.2d 411, 596 N.Y.S.2d 427

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 6, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 411 (Coffee Trade Services, Inc. v. ContiTrade Services Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coffee Trade Services, Inc. v. ContiTrade Services Corp., 193 A.D.2d 411, 596 N.Y.S.2d 427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered January 22, 1993, which denied defendants’ cross motion for an order of seizure pursuant to CPLR 7102, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied defendants’ motion for an order of seizure based on the corporate plaintiffs alleged default in payment under a security agreement, plaintiffs having submitted evidence to refute such indebtedness (CPLR 7102 [c]). Defendants also fail to make a sufficient showing of either likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm to warrant the injunctive relief they seek in the alternative. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered January 22, 1993, which denied defendants’ cross motion for an order of seizure pursuant to CPLR 7102, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied defendants’ motion for an order of seizure based on the corporate plaintiffs alleged default in payment under a security agreement, plaintiffs having submitted evidence to refute such indebtedness (CPLR 7102 [c]). Defendants also fail to make a sufficient showing of either likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm to warrant the injunctive relief they seek in the alternative. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 411, 596 N.Y.S.2d 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffee-trade-services-inc-v-contitrade-services-corp-nyappdiv-1993.